What to know about seller code of conduct violation

TL;DRA seller code of conduct violation on Amazon IT is a formal finding that an account has breached the behavioral rules governing how sellers interact with the marketplace, with competitors, with buyers, or with Amazon's own review and ranking systems. The practical result is usually an account deactivation – listings go dark, disbursements stop, and inventory held in Italian fulfillment centers sits inaccessible. The path back is an evidence-led appeal, not an apology, and the specifics of the notice dictate every step that follows.

If the Account Health dashboard on your Seller Central account now shows a policy violation in the conduct category – or if you have received a deactivation notice citing conduct rules – this page answers the questions sellers on Amazon IT ask in the first hours and days. It covers what the violation actually means, how the appeal process works in practice, and where the real decision points are.

What is a seller code of conduct violation on Amazon IT?

Amazon's conduct rules sit inside the Business Solutions Agreement (BSA) and the Seller Code of Conduct that is incorporated by reference into it. A violation is Amazon's finding that a seller has taken an action – or a pattern of actions – that the rules prohibit, regardless of intent.

In matters we handle involving Amazon IT, the most common conduct categories break into four clusters. The first is manipulation of reviews, ratings, or buyer feedback: incentivizing positive reviews, suppressing negative ones, coordinating review activity across accounts, or using third-party services that violate the policy. The second is sales-rank or search-ranking manipulation: coordinating artificial purchases, using click farms, or running promotions that inflate velocity metrics in ways the rules do not allow. If your account has also received a notice referencing ranking activity, the dedicated analysis on what changed with sales-rank abuse and what to do about it gives important additional context.

The third cluster is improper buyer-seller communications: messaging buyers outside permitted channels, sending unsolicited marketing, or using messaging to solicit or threaten. A separate and detailed procedural guide on how to handle a buyer-seller messaging violation step by step covers that category in full. The fourth – and increasingly common – cluster is conduct linked to related or multiple-account use: operating a second account without authorization, transferring inventory or account assets in ways Amazon treats as evasion, or having business structures that Amazon flags as an attempt to circumvent a prior action.

What distinguishes a conduct violation from a performance violation is the threshold. Performance targets – order defect rate, late dispatch rate, pre-fulfillment cancellation – are measured against published thresholds. Conduct violations carry no numeric floor. A single confirmed incident can be enough to deactivate an account under the BSA's termination provisions. That is why the structure of the appeal is fundamentally different.

Why does the notice wording matter so much?

The exact language Amazon uses in the deactivation email determines which root cause you are actually responding to – and a response built on the wrong root cause will fail, often without explanation. Amazon IT operates on the same Seller Central infrastructure as other European Amazon marketplaces, so the notice arrives in Italian or English depending on account settings, but the underlying policy citation is the same BSA framework applied across the EU surfaces.

In practice, we regularly see sellers file appeals that address the category they assumed triggered the violation, rather than the one Amazon actually cited. The Account Health notification may say "policy violation – seller code of conduct" without elaborating, but the performance notification history, any prior warnings, and the sequence of events in the account timeline usually make the actual trigger identifiable to someone reading carefully. Misreading it produces a Plan of Action that Amazon treats as non-responsive – which is a different problem from one that is responsive but unconvincing.

Two specific traps we encounter frequently: first, sellers who received a prior warning for the same conduct category months earlier and did not treat it as a formal notice. Amazon's systems record that warning, and an appeal that does not acknowledge the prior history reads as though the seller is unaware of their own account. Second, sellers on Amazon IT who also sell on Amazon DE, FR, or ES and do not realize that a conduct action on one surface can propagate to linked accounts on others. The appeal strategy for a multi-surface seller has to account for that risk explicitly.

What does the appeal process actually look like?

The appeal process for a seller code of conduct violation on Amazon IT follows the same Plan of Action structure used across Amazon's marketplace surfaces, but the practical requirements are more exacting than for a typical performance-metrics appeal. A Plan of Action is a structured written submission that identifies the root cause of the violation, the corrective actions already taken, and the preventive measures that make recurrence unlikely. That three-part structure is not optional and it is not enough to name the parts – each one has to be substantiated.

The realistic sequence runs as follows. The seller receives the deactivation notice and has the option to appeal through Seller Central. The initial appeal window is the most important one. A first appeal that is thin, generic, or built on a misread root cause creates a disadvantage that later appeals often cannot recover. Amazon's review queue for Italian-marketplace accounts is not separate from the global review infrastructure, so the reviewers may not have contextual knowledge of Italian trading norms or EU-specific supply-chain documentation.

After submission, Amazon may respond with a request for additional information, a form rejection, or – in some matters – with silence for a period before a follow-up response. Each response from Amazon narrows the field slightly: a second submission has to address why the first was insufficient, not simply restate it. If the internal appeal route is exhausted without resolution, the seller may have access to other mechanisms depending on their BSA version and account standing – a point we cover in the FAQ below.

The comprehensive procedural overview in our guide to reinstatement on online marketplaces sets out the full sequence across surfaces and violation types, which is useful context if the Amazon IT violation sits alongside issues on other platforms.

What evidence actually supports a conduct-violation appeal?

Evidence is the element sellers most often underestimate. A Plan of Action that says "we did not manipulate reviews" proves nothing. One that supplies a documented review-management policy, internal communication records showing the policy was followed, and a plausible timeline that distinguishes organic review patterns from manipulated ones starts to establish something Amazon can evaluate.

The specific evidence depends on the violation category, but the common threads are: a written policy or procedure that existed at the relevant time (not created after the notice), records that demonstrate the policy was implemented and communicated to team members or service providers, and a credible explanation for any anomaly Amazon is likely to have observed. For related-account issues, the evidence is structural – corporate filings, ownership records, bank account documentation, tax identification – and its purpose is to demonstrate that the accounts were not created to circumvent a prior action.

One micro-case from our practice illustrates the gap between a good-faith response and an effective one. An apparel seller on Amazon IT (spring 2025) received a conduct-violation deactivation citing review manipulation. The seller's first appeal, filed without legal input, explained that reviews were handled by a virtual assistant and that the seller had no knowledge of any misconduct. It was rejected. We reviewed the account history, identified that the virtual assistant had used a third-party review-request tool whose terms of service conflicted with the BSA, documented the termination of that service contract, rebuilt the root cause analysis around the actual source of the violation, and submitted a revised Plan of Action with the service-provider records attached. The account was restored.

The lesson is not that the first appeal was dishonest – it was accurate. It was insufficient because it did not trace the root cause to a specific, documented source, and it did not demonstrate that source had been removed.

What are the seller's real decision points?

Sellers facing a code of conduct deactivation on Amazon IT face several decisions that are worth making consciously rather than by default.

The first is whether to appeal at all, and on what timeline. In most conduct matters, appealing promptly with a strong submission is better than waiting. But "promptly" does not mean "immediately if that means filing a weak appeal." A thoughtful three-day preparation is usually better than a reactive same-day filing, particularly if the account history needs to be reconstructed first.

The second decision is scope. If the account sells across multiple Amazon EU surfaces, the appeal strategy for Amazon IT has to be coordinated with any related account health issues on other surfaces. Filing a Plan of Action on IT that implicitly contradicts a prior submission on DE is a compounding problem that is difficult to fix later.

The third decision concerns what happens if internal appeals fail. Depending on the BSA version applicable to the account, sellers may have access to a Notice of Dispute process or other dispute mechanisms. The path depends on the BSA version that applies to the account, which we check first in every matter – because the options available and the sequence required differ, and using the wrong mechanism at the wrong time can foreclose others.

The fourth decision is commercial and not legal: what does the business do while the appeal is pending? FBA inventory in Italian fulfillment centers can typically be requested for removal through a removal order, which preserves the goods even while the account is inactive. That is worth doing early, before storage fees or disposal decisions become an issue. Cash-flow planning for the disbursement hold period is a parallel track.

Where the notice cites review manipulation or ranking abuse → the appeal is primarily documentary: records, third-party service contracts, internal policies. Where it cites related-account or evasion conduct → the appeal is primarily structural: legal entity records, ownership chains, operational separation evidence. Where it cites buyer-seller messaging violations → the appeal is primarily procedural: messaging logs, opt-out records, communication policy documentation. Knowing which type you are dealing with before drafting anything is the first practical step.

Common mistakes sellers make when handling this alone

The myth that a sincere apology and a promise to do better is enough is, unfortunately, widespread – and it is the reason a significant share of first appeals fail. Amazon's review process for conduct violations is not assessing sincerity. It is assessing whether the root cause is correctly identified, whether the corrective action is documented, and whether the preventive measures are plausible and specific.

Beyond that core misunderstanding, four patterns come up repeatedly in matters we handle after a seller's first attempt has failed. First: framing the appeal as a defense. A Plan of Action is not a denial. Saying "we did not do this" without evidence shifts nothing. The more useful framing is "here is what did happen, here is how we fixed it, here is why it will not happen again." Second: generic corrective actions. "We will train our team" is not a corrective action without specifics about what training, by whom, and against what standard. Third: ignoring prior warnings. If Account Health shows prior policy notifications for the same category, the appeal that does not acknowledge them reads as either uninformed or evasive. Fourth: copying templates. Template Plans of Action are identifiable to Amazon's review teams and are treated as low-effort submissions. They almost always fail for conduct violations, which require specific facts.

A second micro-case: a consumer electronics seller on Amazon IT (winter 2025) had already filed two template-based appeals before contacting us. Both had been rejected. We mapped the account timeline, identified that the conduct flag was connected to a promotional campaign run by a logistics partner during a peak period, built the root cause analysis around the partner's campaign mechanics, attached the partner agreement and communications, and documented the campaign's termination and replacement with an in-house process. The third appeal – the first one built on the actual facts – succeeded.

What to do in the first 48 hours after the notice

The first 48 hours shape everything that follows. A few steps are worth taking immediately, in this sequence.

Read the deactivation notice carefully. Note the exact policy citation, the date, and whether any prior warnings are referenced.
Pull the Account Health history in Seller Central and document the current state with screenshots. The dashboard can change, and having a record of what it showed at deactivation matters.
Do not file an appeal immediately unless it is fully prepared. A weak first appeal is harder to recover from than a short delay for proper preparation.
Identify every service provider, tool, or team member who had access to the account or interacted with buyers, reviews, or ranking activity in the period before the violation.
If you sell on other Amazon EU surfaces, check their Account Health dashboards for related flags or warnings.
Consider a removal order for FBA inventory in Italian fulfillment centers to preserve goods during the resolution period.
Gather any documentation that bears on the conduct category cited – service contracts, internal policies, communication records, ownership documents if a related-account issue is cited.

What not to do: do not contact Amazon Seller Support seeking informal reassurance – Seller Support representatives cannot reverse a deactivation, and the conversation is typically recorded in the account file. Do not create a new account to continue selling. Do not file an appeal that says "this was a mistake" without evidence that it was a mistake, because Amazon will treat that as an unsubstantiated denial.

Related areas

Reinstatement practice – account deactivation appeals across Amazon, Walmart, Etsy and eBay
Sales-rank and ranking manipulation – what changed in enforcement and the current appeal strategy

If you have already been through one or two rejected appeals and need a second read on where they fell short and what is still open, this is a good moment to get that assessment before the next submission. A rejected appeal is not a closed door in most conduct matters, but each rejection does narrow the path. Email info@tutamenlaw.com with a brief description of the notice and we will tell you whether the matter is one we can take on.

Frequently asked questions about seller code of conduct violation

How long does resolving seller code of conduct violation usually take on Amazon IT?

Resolution timelines vary considerably depending on the complexity of the root cause, the quality of the first submission, and Amazon's current review queue. A well-prepared first appeal for a straightforward conduct issue – one where the root cause is clearly documented and the corrective evidence is complete – can receive a decision within several days to a few weeks. More complex matters involving related-account flags, multi-surface coordination, or situations where earlier appeals have already been rejected typically take longer. There is no published SLA for conduct-violation appeals, and Amazon IT accounts flow through the same global review infrastructure as other EU surfaces. The honest answer is that the seller controls the quality of the submission but not the review speed. What is within the seller's control is ensuring the first submission is strong enough that a follow-up round is not required.

What are the main risks if I handle seller code of conduct violation alone?

The primary risk is a first appeal that fails on structural grounds – wrong root cause, generic corrective actions, or missing evidence – creating a disadvantaged starting point for every subsequent submission. Amazon's review process for conduct violations applies the same standard to a second or third appeal as it does to the first, except that each rejection is now part of the account record and each new submission has to explain why the prior ones were insufficient. Beyond the appeal itself, sellers who handle conduct matters alone frequently miss the multi-surface risk (a conduct action on Amazon IT can have implications for linked accounts on other EU marketplaces), the inventory-preservation window (removal orders for FBA goods are available but time-sensitive in some circumstances), and the question of what additional mechanisms are available if internal appeals are exhausted. The commercial cost of a prolonged deactivation – dark listings, halted disbursements, inventory costs accumulating – typically dwarfs the cost of getting the appeal right the first time.

Do I need a lawyer for seller code of conduct violation?

Not every seller code of conduct violation on Amazon IT requires legal representation. A seller who correctly identifies the root cause, has clear documentary evidence of both the cause and the corrective action, and is comfortable constructing a structured Plan of Action may be able to handle an initial appeal without outside help. However, in matters we handle, the cases that reach us have usually already passed through one or more failed appeals – which means the cost of not getting it right the first time is real and has already been incurred. A lawyer adds value in three specific situations: where the root cause is not clearly identified from the notice alone; where the account has a complex history (prior warnings, multiple surfaces, related-account flags, or a prior suspension on any Amazon surface); and where internal appeals have been exhausted and the question is whether any further mechanism is available. Attorney-led representation is also relevant when the deactivation is accompanied by a funds hold, because the disbursement and the reinstatement are often separate processes that benefit from coordinated handling.

About Tutamen

Tutamen is an independent law firm for online marketplace sellers. We represent Amazon, Walmart, Etsy and eBay sellers in account deactivations, frozen-funds recovery, intellectual-property disputes, arbitration and Notices of Dispute, and US federal Schedule A defense, plus EU marketplace regulation. Our work is attorney-led and confidential, with fees quoted up front. We act for founders, brand owners and in-house teams who need a specialist for a marketplace dispute. To discuss your situation, email info@tutamenlaw.com.

This page was prepared by James Whitlock, reinstatement and funds analyst at Tutamen.

Page authored by James Whitlock, Reinstatement & Funds Analyst, Tutamen.

Disclaimer: This article is general information, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Marketplace policies and the law change, and every account and case is different. For advice on your situation, contact Tutamen at info@tutamenlaw.com.